The solution to your wish fulfilment
Are 'Fundamentalists' bicameral? -- That is the Question?:
Monday, 11 November, 2002:
iwishihad comments about 'Fundamentalists'.
Who in our Western world would have thought 'some-"thing"', yes, not 'one', but a 'thing'' would have the desire to deliberately destroy the twin towers, cremate innocent people in Bali, -- hostagisise a theatre in Moscow -- blow-up people in Soweto - wander into a crowded place in Israel and bellie-up, taking others with his 19 years of 'knowledge' of his 'I' perception of 'a God'?
Wake up today. What to do? Yes, kill some Americans because "I " (my little mind-space) hate them for what they've done ???? Hmmm? 'Personal' experience or 'someone' elses little 'I' imaginings implanted into a mind-space longing for that bicameral era Oh so long ago? Political or religious? Do these two go hand-in-hand?
But then, it's all in the perception that one's little, 'conscious', "I" makes of the words that have been infused in it since the birth and 'occupation' of this little 'I', isn't it? Perhaps it would be better for all of us to fear the taniwha?
It seems to add veracity to one's perception of bicameralism, doesn't it? What do you mean I hear your little "I" quiz?
Well, prior to 3000 years ago no-one apparently hurt anyone else except in self-preservation and then there was no real guilt. It was a question of 'survival'. Kill or be killed. There was apparently no concept of 'self' and 'God' spoke internally, from the right-lobe, to everyone.
One wonders why He stopped? One also wonders why 'He' wasn't 'She', or 'It', or, perhaps multi-sexual? Perhaps it was to allow us to 'evolve'. And evolve we have! By creating an imaginary 'God' replacement, some strains inducing us to kill each other in the most profane ways!
But it's only them 'Fundamentalists' your little 'I' infuses, 'I' wouldn't do that, would "I"?
iwishihad ponders, wonders and imagines: